New York Safe From Man With *Gasp* 9 Bullets

Via Steven Goddard, who writes that the headline at the article should read “New York violates citizen’s second amendment rights after violating his fourth amendment rights”

Cops: Man violates new gun laws with 2 extra bullets in magazine

…The troopers determined the gun, a .40-caliber pistol, was legally registered and possessed. However, when the troopers inspected the pistol, its magazine contained the nine bullets – New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act only allows seven bullets per magazine.

Police charged Gregory Dean with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation,both misdemeanors, plus vehicle infractions, police said.

He was pulled over because his car’s license plate light bulb wasn’t a CFL working. Whew! Glad the cops are concerned with real crime! And they’ve now made sure NY is completely safe from 2 extra bullets!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “New York Safe From Man With *Gasp* 9 Bullets”

  1. mojo says:

    Dismissed, I think. The NY law is pretty clearly unconstitutional, and the prosecutor declined to waste the taxpayer’s money pursuing a case that would most likely lose or be overturned on appeal.

  2. acethepug says:

    Well, I am assuming that unindicted felon David Gregory will be arrested and charged for HIS open-and-shut trial, right?

    I mean, Gregory’s crime was committed willfully, on television, and after his production was told they could NOT use the prop (a “high-capacity magazine”), so why wasn’t he charged initially?

    Oh, right, he’s one of our betters, my mistake.

    mojo, I hope you are right and it was dropped, but he should never have been charged. If the law doesn’t apply to someone who broke the law on-air, I can’t see why it should have applied to Dean Jr, either 🙂

    Then again, here I am applying things logically and honestly, in the Obama Regime — what was this little pug thinking?

    Thanks for posting!

  3. Aggravated_Gumballs says:

    You forget guys. This “man” was driving in an unsafe and illegal manner. Who knows what other dastardly crimes he was going to commit that day. If he was so willfully and willingly brazenly operated said vehicle in such a deadly and potentially WMD-level way, then who can say that those 2 bullets would not have been intended to massively assault-murder someone later on?

    HUH? Bet you can’t answer that one!!

    Come on guys, “IT’S THE LAAAAAWWWW OF THE WEST“…. errr… on the books. Therefore it must be sensible, legal, justified, and wholly constitutional, right?

    If you’d just take a couple of years to think about it, this law makes sense. 7 bullets can only possibly kill 7 people. That is acceptable in a one-time MDK assault episode. But, 8 people?!??! That’s WAY OVER THE LINE MISTER!!!! Killing 8 people with one magazine is so wholly irresponsible, evil, dastardly and just down right mean, that we had to enact the most severest laws available to put a stop to it as quick as was liberally humanly possible.

    I mean… what insane person bent on killing more than 7 people would ever, EVER, EVAH!! carry more than 1 magazine??


    There’s no there, there. And at this point, what difference does it make? We’ve already lost 7 people. Do you really want to quibble over 2 more?

  4. […] Tip of the ol’ fedora to William Teach over at the Pirate’s Cove. […]

  5. john says:

    Oh yeah I remember The Law of the West. Marshall Earp says sorry cowpokes gotta surrender your guns here in Dodge City, you can have them back when you leave town.” That was all part of the folk lore of America.
    And Teach good point about those light bulbs. Incandescent bulbs are just too quaint for modern times. They are in fact Victorian. If that man had been using an LEd or CFL he probably would never have been stopped. Do you have those energy savers in your Jeep ? I hope so.

    He was not a law abiding citizen. In the USA we do not have the choice of obeying only those laws we agree with obeying. I do not see a lot of civil disobediance on this. Not too many stepping up and saying i do not believe in this law and wish to disobey it. Not like those progressives do as a matter of conscience. Teach how about stepping up, you know walking the walk, and coming up and breaking this unjust law ?

  6. Aggravated_Gumballs says:

    john is off his meds again. Yes John, there are legends that say that this did in fact happen during the “old west” days. But, as can be seen by recent court rulings, that action would be deemed unconstitutional.

    john, please find me where there is an CFL bulb small enough to replace that tag light!! And do you honestly believe that a CFL bulb would be able to survive the rigors of vehicular operation and traffic? And with the vehicle itself making its own energy, what is the point of using an energy-saving bulb? take your pills again, you’re getting looney.

    So, you believe the NY Safe Law is unjust as well? Good to hear. Strange that you don’t believe that this person should have stood up to, what you term as, this unjust law. But then you claim that liberal progressive socialists do participate in civil disobedience as a matter of conscience.

    Thus, you believe some people should be FORCED to obey laws that they disagree with, but you are OK with other people freely ignoring and protesting against those laws they disagree with.

    Hypocrisy much, john?

Pirate's Cove